2014Nu7084. Revocation of revocation of revocation of a disability pension payment

A

National Pension Service

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap23959 decided October 31, 2014

June 10, 2015

July 8, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting the payment of a disability pension against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this Court concerning the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion under paragraph (2) below, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows. Therefore, this Court shall accept it as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. The further determination of this Court

A. As to the time of occurrence of the instant disease

(1) The plaintiff asserts that since the date of the plaintiff's subscription to the national pension, the disease of this case occurred on September 17, 2008, which caused the plaintiff to suffer a sudden decline in the ability of the plaintiff and interfere with his daily life, the disposition of this shower is unlawful on different premise.

(2) Article 58(1) of the former National Pension Act (amended by Act No. 8541, Jul. 23, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that a person who has a physical or mental disability even after completion of treatment due to a disease or injury that occurred during the subscription to the National Pension Scheme shall be paid a disability pension according to the degree of disability during which such disability remains in existence. Therefore, the requirement of entitlement to a disability pension arises during the subscription to the National Pension Scheme, and where a disease or injury which caused the disability does not occur during the subscription to the National Pension Scheme, even though the disability occurred during the subscription to the National Pension Scheme, it cannot be deemed as a pension beneficiary even if the disability occurred during the subscription to the National Pension Scheme (see Supreme Court Decision 2005-7280, Oct. 13, 200). In addition, the meaning of a disease or injury that occurred during the subscription period should be interpreted differently to the extent that the disease or injury caused by a disability occurred during the period of entitlement to the National Pension Scheme (see Supreme Court Decision 2060Da1686, etc.).

(3) However, in full view of the facts admitted by the first instance court as seen earlier and the evidence adopted by the first instance court as well as the following circumstances revealed by the statements from 1 to 6 of the evidence No. 4, it is reasonable to view that the disease of this case was already occurred before the Plaintiff joined the National Pension Scheme when determining medical and objectively, and the Supreme Court precedents cited by the Plaintiff cannot be applied differently from this case. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(A) On May 4, 1984, the Plaintiff undergone a draft physical (hereinafter “the instant draft physical”). At the time, both sides 0.2 were merely 0.2, respectively, and Machina, the representative early symptoms of the instant disease, was found. On the other hand, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had another disease, such as Gochina, which could have caused Machina, in addition to the instant well-known name, other than Gochina.

(B) A military doctor B in charge of the instant draft physical examination conducted a diagnosis that the Plaintiff had the instant disease. On the other hand, there is no objective basis or circumstance to deem that the medical diagnosis in B lacks objectivity and rationality.

(C) As a result of the instant draft physical examination, the Plaintiff was exempted from active duty service upon receiving the 'the second citizen service of physical grade No. 5. The 'the second citizen service of physical grade No. 5' disposition, but the 'the 'the second citizen service of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '' of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ''' of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '' of the 'the ' the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' the ''' of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' the ' the ' the

(D) It may be deemed that the Plaintiff obtained doctor’s degree or driver’s license from September 17, 2008, which the Plaintiff claims to have rapidly deteriorated trial ability as a result of the instant draft physical examination, and engaged in daily life without any big difficulties, such as taking charge of lectures or research at universities. However, considering the result of the instant draft physical examination as seen earlier, considering the characteristics of the instant disease, which has rapidly aggravated for a long time due to the Plaintiff’s functional state within the Plaintiff at the time, it is difficult to recognize the time when the instant disease occurred to be “ around September 17, 2008 when the time when the disease occurred to the Plaintiff,” just because it is alleged by the Plaintiff, such as the career after the instant draft physical examination, is difficult to recognize that the time when the instant disease occurred to the Plaintiff, “the time when the Plaintiff’s physical disability of the Plaintiff,” ultimately, is the same as the time when the instant disease caused by which the cause occurred, and there is no special reason to find any disease as at the time when only the instant disease occurred.

B. As to the applicable law

(1) The Plaintiff was aware only of the occurrence of the instant disease at the time of receiving the instant draft physical examination, and did not know the occurrence of the instant disease until the time of joining the National Pension. Since there was a first diagnosis on the instant disease after joining the National Pension, it is argued to the effect that the requirements for receiving disability pension under Article 67(1) of the National Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8541, Jul. 23, 2007; hereinafter “Revised National Pension Act”) are satisfied.

(2) However, as the first instance court properly pointed out, the Plaintiff appears to have known of the occurrence of the instant disease to himself through the instant draft physical. Even if the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, as seen earlier, the first diagnosis date of the instant disease would be around May 4, 1984, which diagnosed the Plaintiff that the instant disease occurred, and it is apparent that two years have passed since the first diagnosis date prior to the enforcement of the amended National Pension Act. Accordingly, Article 58(1) of the former National Pension Act shall apply to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Addenda to the amended National Pension Act. Ultimately, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be seen as either mother or acceptable.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance is justifiable with this conclusion. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

The presiding judge, the whole judge;

Judges Dok-woo

Judges Yoon Jong-dae